Google's Media Campaign Against the UN Slapped Down

Google has been a forerunner and one of the most outspoken companies in protecting the right to freedom of information and expression. That is laudable and earned the company respect around the globe. What is less admirable is the hyperbole that it has been spewing about the freedom and future of the Internet being in jeopardy at United Nations' (UN) meetings being held in Dubai December 3-14. Not only did Google’s position turn out to be ill-informed, it appears to be self-serving.

A bit of background here is helpful. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) was formed in 1865 to facilitate international agreements on the interconnectivity of communications providers. It allocates radio spectrum and satellite orbits, develops technical standards, and tries to advance connectivity globally, especially to deprived regions. Founded nearly a century before the birth of the UN, the ITU is the oldest member of the UN community. In addition to its 193 member countries, the ITU has more than 700 members representing private sector companies, academic institutions, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These members also may be included in their countries' national delegations to ITU meetings.

(Disclosure: I have never been a consultant to ITU. I have never had a contract with ITU directly or as a subcontractor to ITU through another organization. As noted in my bio, I was asked to serve on the ITU Secretary General’s High Level Experts Group (HLEG) in 2007.)

The purpose of the Dubai meeting, called the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), is to renegotiate the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) that were agreed upon in 1988 to promote global interconnectivity and and interoperability of telecommunication facilities and availability of services to the public. Reviewing the ITR seems like a reasonable thing to do, considering that they were negotiated before the Internet was turned over to the private sector in 1995 and, since then, telephony, cable, satellite, and broadband networks have converged to link the planet, In fact, a review of the ITR probably should have been undertaken sooner.

Google has been the ringleader of a conspiracy theory that the ITU intends to use the ITR process to take over governance of the Internet and cater to nation states that want to censor and filter content. It has pulled out all stops to get its message out. Last Monday (11/26/12), an opinion piece by Gordon Crovitz ran in The Wall Street Journal that claimed that “China, Russia, Iran, and Arab countries are trying to hijack a U.N. agency that has nothing to do with the Internet.” Good grief. If the multilateral organization that has been in charge of global agreements on interconnectivity, interoperability, and availability of networks and communications for 147 years has nothing to do with the Internet, who does? He also stated that, “The self-regulating Internet means no one has to ask for permission to launch a website and no government can tell network operators how to do their jobs.” Actually, numerous countries tell their network operators how to do their jobs, including the United States. Other governments, such as China, require accurate registration information for websites. While this practice is frowned upon and development organizations try to move these countries away from such controls, they do exist.

A couple of days later, a commentary ran in the Financial Times (11/30/12) authored by John Kampfner that warned the future of the Internet was at stake. He declared that, “The issue at stake is will the Internet continue to be run by a series of semi-formal groups that meet to assign domain names and to debate free expression, or will it be handed over to governments, most of which have pushed hard to assert control over cyber space?” He goes on to claim that the meetings have been shrouded in secrecy and the “netizens” who have controlled the Internet have been shut out. He also declared that Russia is the ringleader, followed by Iran, China, and Uzbekistan. Mr. Kampfner is an advisor to Google.

These theories have been bolstered by accusations that ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Touré is catering to the Russians because he spent six years studying there. To put it politely, this is a cheap ad hominem attack. Dr. Touré did study in Russia for six years, but he also lived in the United States for twelve years, his children were educated in the U.S., and he still owns a home in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. He is also a strong proponent of democracy and freedom of expression.

He also has no authority to cater to any member state. The ITU operates by consensus, and ITU staff do not control the agenda or proposals considered Proposals are put forth, posted, commented upon, and discussed. Only those upon which consensus is reached are adopted. Meetings of country delegations include all 193 member states and their entire delegations. The U.S. delegation consists of approximately 125-150 people selected as a multistakeholder group. In all, about 2,000 people are participating in the WCIT country meetings. Google is in the U.S. delegation and has attended these meetings. Google also could have joined ITU as a private sector member and participated in its own right in the WCIT meetings. It has not chosen to do so, even though the maximum amount charged for full participation in ITU activities is only $30,000 – a fee more than affordable for a company with a market cap of $228 billion.

The claim that the ITU could bow to authoritarian regimes to enable censorship of the Internet is false on its face. The ITU, as a body of the UN, must respect international law. In his remarks yesterday at the opening session of WCIT, Dr. Touré specifically rebutted the “myths" that have surrounded the WCIT meeting. He first addressed the concern that the new treaty might help legitimize government censorship. He unequivocally stated that, “I fully agree that this should not happen,” and reaffirmed the ITU’s obligation to adhere to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

He also noted that Article 33 of ITU’s Constitution “recognizes the right of the public to correspond by means of the international service of public correspondence,” and that the WCIT negotiations and ITR cannot violate that Article or any other provision of the ITU Constitution. He specifically stated that “we are not going to be challenging Article 19, or indeed any other article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Secretary General Touré drew attention to a proposal from the government of Tunisia requiring all provisions of the ITRs to be implemented in accordance with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 33 of the ITU Constitution. It is interesting that this clearly worded proposal came from an Arab country that used to engage in extensive censorship and content filtering. I call that progress and something to celebrate. Dr. Touré noted that, “This conference will not stand in the way of the right to protect the freedom of expression, the right to communicate, and the right to privacy.”

With respect to Internet governance, Dr. Touré directly stated that, “we should note quite clearly that ITU has no wish or desire to play a role in critical Internet resources such as domain names – and that ITU does not have any mandate to challenge ICANN’s role and competency.” He welcomed the new CEO of ICANN, Fadi Chehadé, and ICANN board chairman, Steve Crocker.

After reviewing numerous articles and news posts regarding the “Google Campaign," one has to wonder: What is going on here? What is the real reason behind these tactics that have ensnared the U.S. delegation? One plausible answer is a common one for Google: money. Jean-Christophe Nothias set forth a compelling analysis in the Huffington Post in which he argues that Google’s real motivation behind its WCIT smear campaign revolves around proposals that could upset the payment structure for providing service. Today, the requesting operator pays the sending operator for requested content. Proposals put forth by the European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association (ETNO) call for a shared system that would require sending and receiving entities to negotiate commercial agreements based around the principle that the sending network pays. Mr. Nothias concludes that, under such a system, Google “would be unable to continue using freely the worldwide infrastructure network for which it did not spend a penny.”

And where is the U.S. Government on this issue? In line with Google. The simple three-page text of the U.S. submission to the WCIT states that "the Internet has evolved to operate in a separate and distinct environment that is beyond the scope or mandate of the ITRs or the International Telecommunication Union….” It goes on to declare that the groups that have long played an important role in the development of the Internet, such as the Internet Society, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), “are most capable of addressing issues with the speed and flexibility required in this rapidly changing Internet environment.” One is left to wonder how these groups are going to be able to do this without interacting with all of the communications providers that actually deliver content. Without the interconnectivity and interoperability of networks, content will sit on servers. The U.S.’s WCIT proposal ends by declaring that, “the United States opposes adding provisions to the ITRs that can be interpreted to restrict the choices available to governments in regulating their national telecommunications regimes.” Oh, good. That will make Russia and China happy.

The U.S. Government simply can no longer go to ITU meetings with a big NO on its shoulder and try to push everyone into accepting our position. The U.S. has said that the ITU should not be involved with cybercrime, it should not be involved in helping countries establish CERTs or cyber response capabilities, it should not engage in cybersecurity activities beyond policy, and now it should not be involved in the very function it was established for. This is getting us nowhere but at the back of the room. The U.S. represents only about 11% of the total online population and is only one country out of about 250 countries and territories connected to the Internet. The U.S. needs to realize that other countries increasingly do not care what the U.S. thinks about Internet matters. Moreover, its current position is likely to result in content pulled out of the U.S. The U.S. Government needs to tack and change course and show some global leadership that will help protect national and economic security interests while recognizing legitimate issues associated with the converged networks and the need to serve 2.5 billion people online now and 4.5 billion more in line.